From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 23:34:26 BST
Platt wrote:
>
> I'd say a human is at a higher level than a dog because a dog can't
> argue the point, scientifically or otherwise. (-:
First if all let me say that I don't really doubt man's moral superiority,
but I want to understand it. I can't really be skeptical about this on a
fundamental level probably any more than I could be about my own existence,
but my concern is that I'm being merely humanocentric, or more specifically
stevo-centric. Biologically, I can't help but think that I am morally
superior to everything else in the universe, but I could also be socially
blinded on this issue in the way that American slave owners would have made
the exact same arguments about whites being morally superior to blacks.
e.g.
>Or put it another way. Would you rather be a dog than human? If not,
> why not?
We could make substitutions with a lot of different types of people not just
animals.
On the one hand you could make a "do you even have to ask what is good?"
kind of argument, but being a human myself I don't think I can be objective.
(I know that was a very un-moq thing to say, but I'm sincerely trying to
figure out how moq clears this up.) Any standard we set for this moral
superiority has to be considered along with the fact that it is we who are
setting the standard. I guess you are arguing that we are superior because
we can even set standards but wouldn't it be just like a human to set
standards that favor himself? I guess it's a sort of Cartesian "I set moral
standards, therefore I am morally superior" thing. Maybe it works.
>
> Or, regarding his lot in life, who is more free to change it, a dog or a
> human?
>
The idea of freedom seems key to moq and I would love to see some discussion
on this or maybe someone could point me towards an essay.
> Or, if you judge evolution by width and depth of awareness (Quality),
> would you say dogs come out on top?
>
> Your question raises the same problem with science that Pirsig raises.
> Science being objective doesn't make moral judgments. (That's what
> they claim, anyway.) So science can't admit that in evoluntionary terms
> something (a human) is better than something else (a dog) , nor that
> there is any purpose to evolution at all. Is this the attitude, Pirsig asks,
> that those in charge of society should have? If not, what basis should
> there be for morality? Should the basis be what the most powerful group
> says it is (postmodernists), what religious leaders preach
> (fundamentalists), what a culture traditionally allows (relativists), or
> what a "vague, amorphous soup of sentiments" suggests (humanists,
> socialists)? Pirsig's answer is to propose a rational morality based on
> the MOQ. Since only humans occupy the highest moral evolutionary
> level, the intellectual, they're morally superior to animals. Similarly,
> animals are morally superior to mud. Within this "football field" of moral
> guidance, there's still plenty of room for argument. But at least there's
> rational ground on which to play.
>
> Platt
I'll keep thinking about it.
Thanks for responding,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:53 GMT